Like many other educational innovations, assessment was founded on great expectations. These included expectations for more efficient educational programs and expectations for more effective student learning. Of course, these expectations imply that educational institutions and their programs were not already efficient or effective enough. Whether or not these assumptions are true in general for higher education or in particular for individual institutions and their programs, there has been relentless pressure for assessment (and the expectations associated with it) over the last ten to fifteen years. And, many authors have complained that the assessment movement has not transformed higher education into a paradigm of efficiency and effectiveness even after such a long period of time.
Unfortunately, such criticism seems to be based on another assumption; that is, that higher education is some sort of monolith (like a giant corporation) that can be subjected to a singular idea, such as Total Quality Management, and, as a result, produce better student learning in a more efficient and cost-effective manner. Not only do institutions of higher education have a great deal of autonomy but also the units within the institutions and the faculty who work within the units are largely independent, all of which militates against the monolithic implementation of any innovation.
Instead of starting with the assumption that educational institutions and their programs are not efficient or effective enough, one would do better to begin with an assumption that is both more realistic and more positive: all organizations and individuals need to change and grow in order to adapt to current conditions. Faculty in particular are by education and by their very nature professionals who are curious and intrinsically motivated to question.